@deadmanwalking - Comparing a polygamist to a handicapped person is in my opinion, ridiculous.

As a society we decided to pass the AMA so people who are disabled can be given access to reasonable accommodations, because they have to deal with their disability. They have no choice.

You can choose to get married or to not get married. If you don't get married, you are "Deprived" of the benefit you receive from being married, because it was a choice that also has advantages if you choose not to get married.

Ah, so there's no reason people who aren't Christian shouldn't be restricted from getting married, then?

I mean, that's clearly a choice, and so it's totally okay to discriminate against people who make it, right?

I mean, I'm not saying you'd advocate it (because, unlike polygamy, it's not more effort), but by your current logic there's no reason the government shouldn't be able to make such a law, since it doesn't discriminate against anyone who never had a choice. Likewise a law that prohibits people from marrying those of other religions.

ciretose wrote:

To not extend those benefits to additional spouses, because you can't or won't choose a single person to fill that role isn't depriving you of anything. It isn't a disability, which is something beyond your control, so you aren't entitled to to special accommodations because you don't want to conform anymore than I have a right to walk around in the nude in public, because I don't like wearing clothes.

Depending on what you mean by 'in public' you do have that right, and when you don't, it's only because it might abrogate other peoples' right to not see that particular thing. Polygamy, on the other hand, infringes on nobody else's rights. And even that logic for disallowing it is a bit shaky, as many countries allow partial or even full nudity, making it pretty clear there's no real good reason not to.

And "special accommodations because you don't want to conform". Wow. Conformity is not what the law is supposed to enforce. Indeed, it's supposed to encourage and alow as much diversity as possible. That's an awful and completely inappropriate attitude on just about every level.

Also, by that logic, the only reason you think Gay Mariage is okay is because you believe that people are born that way? I mean, they're asking for a change based on their nonconformity, after all.

What if polyamorous people are, too? There's a fair amount of evidence for that position, actually. Does your answer change then?

Why only one? Because you are asking for major benefits to be provided to that person, as well as responsibilities.

You mean like a power of attorney? Yeah. Just do that. Have multiple spouses but only one have those responsibilities. Derp.

As for the benefits, I've already brought up children and you continue to ignore it. Childrens healthcare is NOT high profit. It really isn't. That stuff is expensive as heck. And now insurance companies have to cover children until age 27 if they're in college. So the "limit" of how many children the law and insurance companies have to cover is, effectively, infinite. You don't have to have that child by your spouse to have it covered. You can adopt as many as you want. There is no limit to the number of children you have OR how bad of health they are in.

If you are going to try and argue the cost of healthcare for people under 27 is anywhere near the cost of healthcare for people over 27 through the rest of their lives, you aren't interested in having a serious conversation.

Insurance on young people is the profit that covers the elderly. You know that, it just doesn't fit your argument.

I think anyone who wants to get married should be able to get married. I also think that you have to pick someone to get married, or at least someone to be entitled to the benefits and accepting of the responsibilities.

As the link up thread pointed out, historically it has been a net negative in the societies in which it occurred, and logistically it causes a number of issues no one has addressed how to remedy, so I have no idea why we should change the law, in the same way I see no reason we should change laws on public nudity.

I think anyone who wants to get married should be able to get married. I also think that you have to pick someone to get married, or at least someone to be entitled to the benefits and accepting of the responsibilities.

As the link up thread pointed out, historically it has been a net negative in the societies in which it occurred, and logistically it causes a number of issues no one has addressed how to remedy, so I have no idea why we should change the law, in the same way I see no reason we should change laws on public nudity.

Since your biggest logistical problem seems to be insurance how would the equation change in a country where you didn't get insurance through your employer? Whether you have some form of single payer or everyone buys it individually, whichever floats your boat, as long as you don't get it through your spouse?

Since your biggest logistical problem seems to be insurance how would the equation change in a country where you didn't get insurance through your employer? Whether you have some form of single payer or everyone buys it individually, whichever floats your boat, as long as you don't get it through your spouse?

It is one of many problems when you assign a job intended for one person to many people.

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

etc...

The idea is that you assign someone to take a specific role in your life, with all of the benefits and obligations that come with that role.

When you are unwilling to assign a single person to that role, you don't get those benefits.

I think anyone who wants to get married should be able to get married. I also think that you have to pick someone to get married, or at least someone to be entitled to the benefits and accepting of the responsibilities.

If you'll notice, I admitted you likely had this opinion. I just asked why. What logic makes a law that forbids marriages by a specific religious group (say Mormons, since that could be argued to have similar effects on the cult problem) morally different from one that forbids polygamy?

Both are morally identical situations. They're only different in the amount of legal difficulty that goes into changing them. If one is wrong, so is the other. What is your chain of logic for this not being the case?

I'm really serious, here. I want you to lay out a moral case, not a legal one. I want to understand how you justify your position, how and why it makes sense to you.

ciretose wrote:

As the link up thread pointed out, historically it has been a net negative in the societies in which it occurred, and logistically it causes a number of issues no one has addressed how to remedy, so I have no idea why we should change the law, in the same way I see no reason we should change laws on public nudity.

Because it's morally wrong. Because it causes heartbreak and loss and human suffering. Because it's unjust and opens the door for further injustice.

If you are going to try and argue the cost of healthcare for people under 27 is anywhere near the cost of healthcare for people over 27 through the rest of their lives, you aren't interested in having a serious conversation.

Insurance on young people is the profit that covers the elderly. You know that, it just doesn't fit your argument.

Citation needed.

Also, if money from insuring young people is going to pay for other healthcare, isn't that by definition NOT profit?

I think anyone who wants to get married should be able to get married. I also think that you have to pick someone to get married, or at least someone to be entitled to the benefits and accepting of the responsibilities.

If you'll notice, I admitted you likely had this opinion. I just asked why. What logic makes a law that forbids marriages by a specific religious group (say Mormons, since that could be argued to have similar effects on the cult problem) morally different from one that forbids polygamy?

Both are morally identical situations. They're only different in the amount of legal difficulty that goes into changing them. If one is wrong, so is the other. What is your chain of logic for this not being the case?

I'm really serious, here. I want you to lay out a moral case, not a legal one. I want to understand how you justify your position, how and why it makes sense to you.

ciretose wrote:

As the link up thread pointed out, historically it has been a net negative in the societies in which it occurred, and logistically it causes a number of issues no one has addressed how to remedy, so I have no idea why we should change the law, in the same way I see no reason we should change laws on public nudity.

Because it's morally wrong. Because it causes heartbreak and loss and human suffering. Because it's unjust and opens the door for further injustice.

Public nudity does all that?

I don't understand why you want to make this a moral argument rather than a legal one, from either standpoint; they just don't stand up in court, witness Lawrence v. Texas. I mean, if we're just having a conversation, then we're just having a conversation, but this thread was spawned by one about legal rights.

I don't understand why you want to make this a moral argument rather than a legal one, from either standpoint; they just don't stand up in court, witness Lawrence v. Texas. I mean, if we're just having a conversation, then we're just having a conversation, but this thread was spawned by one about legal rights.

Because denying people their civil rights is a moral issue. The very idea of civil rights comes from moral ideas.

Denying people rights of any kind is a legal issue, be it civil or criminal law. Yes, the idea of civil rights comes from moral ideas, but "immorality" doesn't have any legal status one way or the other. In fact, citations of immorality within a courtroom are frequently reason for appeal.

Gay marriage wasn't passed by the legislature in the states where it's recognized because morality was the issue at hand. In fact, Lawrence v. Texas, the texas sodomy case which I mentioned above, was overturned by the Supreme Court because even the most socially conservative Justices recognized that "it's immoral" is not a legal argument.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it may be that polygamous marriage deserves the same legal protection as gay marriage, but someone's going to have to make that case before the legislature or in court. "People sneering at my promiscuous ways hurts my feelings" isn't an appropriate argument in either venue, regardless of how true it might be.

You're confusing the morality of polygamy, which isn't what we're questioning, with the morality of denying civil rights to someone on that. Indeed, morality IS the reason gay marriage has been recognized in some states. You can't make a legal argument for something to become legal, that's redundant. If you're saying that denial of rights is a legal issue, that means there's a legal recourse. There isn't, since gay marriage is illegal, and states aren't required to enforce laws that don't exist. It's a LEGISLATIVE one, and moral arguments are abound in the legislative process. Moral meaning an argument about "what should we do" rather than "what can we do."

I think what was asking for is an argument that doesn't fall to "but it would be a hassle."

You're confusing the morality of polygamy, which isn't what we're questioning, with the morality of denying civil rights to someone on that. Indeed, morality IS the reason gay marriage has been recognized in some states. You can't make a legal argument for something to become legal, that's redundant. If you're saying that denial of rights is a legal issue, that means there's a legal recourse. There isn't, since gay marriage is illegal, and states aren't required to enforce laws that don't exist. It's a LEGISLATIVE one, and moral arguments are abound in the legislative process. Moral meaning an argument about "what should we do" rather than "what can we do."

I think what was asking for is an argument that doesn't fall to "but it would be a hassle."

In every state I can think of which has recognized gay marriage, it has been under the civil rights provided by that state's constitution. You certainly can make a legal argument for something to become legal, however clunky the phrase is. There is legal recourse to those who're being denied their rights, and gay marriage has been recognized through several such cases.

My argument that doesn't fall to "but it would be a hassle" is that the proponents of polygamy have yet to prove their civil rights are being denied in a court of law. They're perfectly free to do that; in fact, it's probably a better use of their energy than arguing on a gaming company's internet message-boards.

You're confusing the morality of polygamy, which isn't what we're questioning, with the morality of denying civil rights to someone on that. Indeed, morality IS the reason gay marriage has been recognized in some states. You can't make a legal argument for something to become legal, that's redundant. If you're saying that denial of rights is a legal issue, that means there's a legal recourse. There isn't, since gay marriage is illegal, and states aren't required to enforce laws that don't exist. It's a LEGISLATIVE one, and moral arguments are abound in the legislative process. Moral meaning an argument about "what should we do" rather than "what can we do."

I think what was asking for is an argument that doesn't fall to "but it would be a hassle."

In every state I can think of which has recognized gay marriage, it has been under the civil rights provided by that state's constitution. You certainly can make a legal argument for something to become legal, however clunky the phrase is. There is legal recourse to those who're being denied their rights, and gay marriage has been recognized through several such cases.

My argument that doesn't fall to "but it would be a hassle" is that the proponents of polygamy have yet to prove their civil rights are being denied in a court of law. They're perfectly free to do that; in fact, it's probably a better use of their energy than arguing on a gaming company's internet message-boards.

I'm really baffled by this. It sounds like you're just telling me to shut up in so many words.

My point was that this thread spawned from the gay marriage thread, and however often both sides of that argument cite morality in their reasoning, none of the ground gained there has been due to morality so much as denial of rights.

My point was that this thread spawned from the gay marriage thread, and however often both sides of that argument cite morality in their reasoning, none of the ground gained there has been due to morality so much as denial of rights.

Again, those are arguments about the morality of the act in question.

Put it a different way, make an argument for either remaining illegal that, again, doesn't boil down to "it would be legally difficult to implement changes to our current paradigm".

I'm just asking for a normative argument, not an argument from pragmatism or tradition.

My point was that this thread spawned from the gay marriage thread, and however often both sides of that argument cite morality in their reasoning, none of the ground gained there has been due to morality so much as denial of rights.

Doesn't that mean that you're calling the Bill of Rights (and, by extension, any document that enumerates rights) a moral document rather than a legal one, though? I'm really curious, not being snarky.

Doesn't that mean that you're calling the Bill of Rights (and, by extension, any document that enumerates rights) a moral document rather than a legal one, though? I'm really curious, not being snarky.

I am calling it a moral document. That doesn't make it not also a legal one. The rights they espouse are based on what the culture at the time believed were important things that government should not be able to infringe upon. Most laws are based on moral arguments.

You, uh, did catch the references to it being effectively legal in Canada, and the link to the relevant legal code, right?

Clearly, this is a doable thing. Probably a bit more complicated insurance-wise (socialized health care in Canada) but still doable.

Another thing that makes a difference is that alimony in Canada is rare, and when awarded is time limited. We have case law that says marriage is not supposed to be a lifetime pension or insurance policy. Someone who is self-sufficient, or capable of becoming self-sufficient, at the end of a relationship will not usually be entitled to receive spousal support.

You break up, you get property division, and then you are on your own.

Child support though... you are on the hook for life, and you can`t prenup your way out of it.

This is the growing trend in the US as well. Except child support ends at adulthood for the most part. Missouri has a weird law that allows child support until the age of 23 in limited circumstances.

Insurance companies now have to cover "children" that are in college up till 26.

Many children already have up to 4 parents deciding legal details of their lives, their parents and possibly step-parents.

Multiple marriages are already been charged with criminal acts. It is not just that the government doesn't recognize these relationships, it is that government in some cases actively criminalizes it. Not even same-sex couples that marry but don't have their marriages recognized by the government are not as oppressed.

I don't understand why you want to make this a moral argument rather than a legal one, from either standpoint; they just don't stand up in court, witness Lawrence v. Texas. I mean, if we're just having a conversation, then we're just having a conversation, but this thread was spawned by one about legal rights.

We are indeed, and I could've conveyed what I meant much better. I was very tired when I wrote that, my bad.

Let's rephrase that whole first part, using 'principles' and 'practicality' instead of 'moral' and 'legal':

What I Meant wrote:

If you'll notice, I admitted you likely had this opinion. I just asked why. What logic makes a law that forbids marriages by a specific religious group (say Mormons, since that could be argued to have similar effects on the cult problem) different in principle from one that forbids polygamy?

Both are identical situations in regards to basic legal and moral principles. They're only different in the amount of practical difficulty that goes into changing them. If one is wrong, so is the other. What is your chain of logic for this not being the case?

I'm really serious, here. I want you to lay out a case based on principle, not a one based solely on practical considerations. I want to understand how you justify your position, how and why it makes sense to you.

See what I mean now?

My point is and was that, going by the basic principles that our governmental system and laws are predicated on, unfair treatment of a minority group is simply, blatantly, inappropriate on every possible level.

I do also believe it's morally wrong to treat such a group differently, but I actually tend to agree with you that morality per se isn't a good basis for legislation. I was just really tired last night, searching for words to express what I meant, and found the wrong ones.

I don't understand why you want to make this a moral argument rather than a legal one, from either standpoint; they just don't stand up in court, witness Lawrence v. Texas. I mean, if we're just having a conversation, then we're just having a conversation, but this thread was spawned by one about legal rights.

We are indeed, and I could've conveyed what I meant much better. I was very tired when I wrote that, my bad.

Let's rephrase that whole first part, using 'principles' and 'practicality' instead of 'moral' and 'legal':

What I Meant wrote:

If you'll notice, I admitted you likely had this opinion. I just asked why. What logic makes a law that forbids marriages by a specific religious group (say Mormons, since that could be argued to have similar effects on the cult problem) different in principle from one that forbids polygamy?

Both are identical situations in regards to basic legal and moral principles. They're only different in the amount of practical difficulty that goes into changing them. If one is wrong, so is the other. What is your chain of logic for this not being the case?

I'm really serious, here. I want you to lay out a case based on principle, not a one based solely on practical considerations. I want to understand how you justify your position, how and why it makes sense to you.

See what I mean now?

My point is and was that, going by the basic principles that our governmental system and laws are predicated on, unfair treatment of a minority group is simply, blatantly, inappropriate on every possible level.

I do also believe it's morally wrong to treat such a group differently, but I actually tend to agree with you that morality per se isn't a good basis for legislation. I was just really tired last night, searching for words to express what I meant, and found the wrong ones.

I don't really have an opinion on this one, but but in order to demand equal treatment as a minority, a group has to be prevalent enough in society to be considered a minority. Minority status (less marriage than job protection at that point) for LGBT people was denied for years using a legal device that came down to "there aren't enough of them to be a minority, they're just weirdos." (I am by no means saying this is fair treatment.)

This whole thread has also raised the question in my mind as to whether polygamy is in and of itself illegal in the US. People who have more than one spouse and don't tell their spouses can be charged with fraud; nut-jobs who want to marry 12 years olds can be charged with child abuse at the very least. But if one man is married to two women and they all knowingly live as a married group, are there legal means to invalidate their marriage? We'd probably need a lawyer to answer this one, but if so what are they?

I don't really have an opinion on this one, but but in order to demand equal treatment as a minority, a group has to be prevalent enough in society to be considered a minority. Minority status (less marriage than job protection at that point) for LGBT people was denied for years using a legal device that came down to "there aren't enough of them to be a minority, they're just weirdos." (I am by no means saying this is fair treatment.)

This whole thread has also raised the question in my mind as to whether polygamy is in and of itself illegal in the US. People who have more than one spouse and don't tell their spouses can be charged with fraud; nut-jobs who want to marry 12 years olds can be charged with child abuse at the very least. But if one man is married to two women and they all knowingly live as a married group, are there legal means to invalidate their marriage? We'd probably need a lawyer to answer this one, but if so what are they?

As far as I know, additional marriages are still treated as fraud because you would be defrauding the state. If you are not legally married but only married through the church, you can have multiple marriages as far as I know, but the additional marriages will be in name only and will give no legal standing.

This whole thread has also raised the question in my mind as to whether polygamy is in and of itself illegal in the US. People who have more than one spouse and don't tell their spouses can be charged with fraud; nut-jobs who want to marry 12 years olds can be charged with child abuse at the very least. But if one man is married to two women and they all knowingly live as a married group, are there legal means to invalidate their marriage? We'd probably need a lawyer to answer this one, but if so what are they?

IANAL, so this is only my understanding, but it would still be prosecuted as fraud. You cannot legally get married if you are already, therefore in order to be married to 2 women you would have had to commit fraud when applying for the marriage license, even if both women knew and approved.

As the link up thread pointed out, historically it has been a net negative in the societies in which it occurred, and logistically it causes a number of issues no one has addressed how to remedy, so I have no idea why we should change the law, in the same way I see no reason we should change laws on public nudity.

Because it's morally wrong. Because it causes heartbreak and loss and human suffering. Because it's unjust and opens the door for further injustice.

This article offers the problems that come with polygamous societies historically, and while you can say that it is possible in the future people will be better and treat each other better, or that not all polygamous relationships are negative, I point out that offering legal benefits isn't a neutral stance on the issue. It is an endorsement.

One that doesn't appear at all warranted, given how poorly it has gone for other societies in the past.

There is a real benefit to having a person be able to designate another person as a spouse. It brings accountability to relationships and consequences for not keeping ones commitments.

Polygamy removes a good chunk of that commitment.

It is morally wrong to kick a puppy. It is not morally wrong to say "I'm not going to provide you all of the benefits of being married if you can't even be bothered to narrow your selection to a single person."

Also, if money from insuring young people is going to pay for other healthcare, isn't that by definition NOT profit?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

"...half of the average cohort member's total lifetime expenditures will result from health care utilized during or after age 65. This is equivalent to saying that half of the entire cohort's lifetime expenditures will result from health care utilized during or after age 65."

Insurance companies cover children because it is generally profitable. They cover spouses because they have to.

Insurance companies now have to cover "children" that are in college up till 26.

Many children already have up to 4 parents deciding legal details of their lives, their parents and possibly step-parents.

Multiple marriages are already been charged with criminal acts. It is not just that the government doesn't recognize these relationships, it is that government in some cases actively criminalizes it. Not even same-sex couples that marry but don't have their marriages recognized by the government are not as oppressed.

This isn't true. The children will always be a dependent of a single family, not of multiple families. I work in family court, and decisions like this are made by deciding custody and guardianship. It is never 4 parents who decide such things, it is either two or one.

Now I'd like to see a comparative study of monogamous marriage vs. remaining unmarried/without children.

Personally I think everyone should lay off the breeding for a while. The state sanctioning marriage at ALL isn't a neutral stance on the issue, if you want to put it that way.

Look, there are a lot of social ills that arise from things that we consider to be rights, but we don't take those rights away from people. If we did we certainly would round up all the firearms, because they're used to kill people--thousands every year.

The state sanctions marriage for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is it puts someone else on the hook for debts and care of children.

The reason it is one person is the same reason you are training in CPR to point to a single person and tell them specifically to call 911. When it is one person, responsibility is clear, when it is many, no one is responsible.

We've gone over this. That's not a good reason to deny someone a right.

Thing is, you can have your spouse have power of attorney for medical issues, and yet leave all your money to your children (or anyone else). These things are done routinely. The rights and responsibilities that you ascribe to marriage are routinely broken up and handed to other people already.

Also, see my comments about the laws in countries that allow polygamy.
Seriously!!!!!!!!

We've gone over this. That's not a good reason to deny someone a right.

You have not even come close to convincing me that it is a right.

I am quite certain that if you pull up the links to how they do it in countries where it is legal, it can be summed up by "The woman gets hosed"

But feel free to prove me wrong.

For the exact same reason that gay marriage is a right. Equal protection under the law.

And that's not how this works. You made and continue to make the assertion that it would be FUNDAMENTALLY legally infeasible to allow multiple wives. You haven't shown that, you've just kept asserting it. You've made individual arguments as to why it might be more complex, but not one that proves it is impossible. The burden of proof is on your side, and I'm simply encouraging you to even attempt to research that particular point.

Polygamy isn't equal protection under the law, for all of the reasons I pointed out above.

The law says you can designate a person to be your spouse, and they will be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of that position.

It doesn't entitle you to be able to pick multiple spouses, as that would be an advantage that is not equal.

You want more than equality because you want multiple benefactors.

Actually no I don't, because I'm arguing that you can easily divide those benefits between spouses. You either haven't been reading or haven't been comprehending any of my posts. If you can have one wife, and have a separate person have power of attorney, and yet a third person be your sole benefactor, then certainly those rights you ascribe to marriage can be divvied up. And that wouldn't be an advantage, since if it were legal everyone could do it. Equal.

But the LAW, in most states, states that marriage has to be between a man and a wife. See, you can't use the law in question as part of an argument to change the law, which is why we've been asking for a "why" answer.

And the burden isn't on me, you are the one asking for special privilege.

The government functionally gives each person a voucher that they can use to designated one person to be their spouse.

Your issue is they should give out more vouchers.

Same sex marriage should be legal because all they want it to be able to use the voucher that everyone else gets. They aren't asking for anything in addition, or extra vouchers. They just want to be able to have a voucher.

And the burden isn't on me, you are the one asking for special privilege.

The government functionally gives each person a voucher that they can use to designated one person to be their spouse.

Your issue is they should give out more vouchers.

Same sex marriage should be legal because all they want it to be able to use the voucher that everyone else gets. They aren't asking for anything in addition, or extra vouchers. They just want to be able to have a voucher.

This article offers the problems that come with polygamous societies historically, and while you can say that it is possible in the future people will be better and treat each other better, or that not all polygamous relationships are negative, I point out that offering legal benefits isn't a neutral stance on the issue. It is an endorsement.

One that doesn't appear at all warranted, given how poorly it has gone for other societies in the past.

There is a real benefit to having a person be able to designate another person as a spouse. It brings accountability to relationships and consequences for not keeping ones commitments.

Polygamy removes a good chunk of that commitment.

It is morally wrong to kick a puppy. It is not morally wrong to say "I'm not going to provide you all of the benefits of being married if you can't even be bothered to narrow your selection to a single person."

I think you have a pretty compelling argument here but I suspect that the jury is still out on the total net benefits. It may also be something that changes with changes in how institutions like marriage play out long term.

Basically speaking I suspect if one looks closely at the societies mentioned in the article one finds that what really happened was a switch from polygyny to more or less arranged marriage monogamy.

The end result is, as the article points out, this reduces the pool of young men without access to the pool of available women and that in turn has benefits for society since its this pool of increasingly desperate young males that are most likely to be committing crimes.

The problem here is that our society doesn't have arranged marriages. In effect we have recreated many of the issues that Polygynous societies historically had since what we really have in our society is a kind of serial monogamy. The women in effect take turns having access to the most desirable men.

The obvious downside to this issue is large numbers of single parent families where, once the monogamous relationship ended, the female ended up without a mate and therefore little help with some potentially significant pressures being put on the society as a whole.

An interesting example of an upside we are seeing in our society is that men lower down the 'desirability scale' have been increasingly competing by offering increasing investment in the relationship in such areas as cooking, cleaning and child rearing as a way to entice females to consider them as a mate.

Ultimately however we really don't have that clear an idea of how polygyny stacks up against serial monogamy and it will be some time yet before we are likely to really have such data.

Furthermore no one is really arguing for a return to historical polgyny. What is being debated is if we might consider stacking Polygamy alongside serial monogamy in a society where women hold a great deal of power at least compared to their female ancestors from earlier centuries.

Personally if one where to consider such a model I'll at least start with an age requirement. Say having it so that polygamy is illegal unless all parties are at least 26 years old. It'd probably keep the crazy cultists out of the picture as well. After all do they really want to take their 'family' to get legally married when the youngest turns 26 and end up with a situation where the state is now poking their noise into everything? I mean is there a statue of limitations on statutory rape?

We can't know the future, we can only know the history which pretty cleary shows monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures.

Such introductions of monogamy are usually simultaneous with other major changes in the cultures in question. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Additionally, all were introducing monogamy as opposed specifically to polygyny (and only polygyny), resulting in no data as to allowing all polygamous relationships (which, for all we know, might have an even greater positive cultural effect).

Clearly, any increase in the fairness of an institution is going to positively impact quality of life issues, so monogamy is superior to an unfair system such as universal polygyny. This in no way even implies that it would also be superior to another fair system such as both polygyny and polyandry being equally common.

Nor am I arguing for this sort of thing bheing compulsory (I'm mostly monoganous by nature), just allowed legally.

ciretose wrote:

This article offers the problems that come with polygamous societies historically, and while you can say that it is possible in the future people will be better and treat each other better, or that not all polygamous relationships are negative, I point out that offering legal benefits isn't a neutral stance on the issue. It is an endorsement.

It is a neutral stance if you offer it to everyone else. Providing benefits to one version and not another (as is done now) is an endorsement of that as more right. Our system right now endorses heterosexual monogamy and nothing else, which is why it's unfair. So making it legal is, I suppose, endorsing it, inasmuch as it is now endorsed just as much as eny other marriage. Or, to put it another way, treated fairly.

ciretose wrote:

One that doesn't appear at all warranted, given how poorly it has gone for other societies in the past.

So...we shouldn't have tried a non-monarchal form of government, given how badly those had gone in the past, then?

Context changes, and thus so does what are good ideas.

ciretose wrote:

There is a real benefit to having a person be able to designate another person as a spouse. It brings accountability to relationships and consequences for not keeping ones commitments.

Polygamy removes a good chunk of that commitment.

How so? You can still be divorced or suffer the other legal problems if you fail in those commitments, you just aren't restricted to only having them to one other person. Having them with multiple people may make them harder to meet sometimes, but it doesn't change the consequences of failing to do so.

ciretose wrote:

It is morally wrong to kick a puppy. It is not morally wrong to say "I'm not going to provide you all of the benefits of being married if you can't even be bothered to narrow your selection to a single person."

So passive disctrimination of minorities you choose is fine? Really?

ciretose wrote:

HIPPA

Everything else aside, HIPPA is recent as hell (it dates back to 1996, and wasn't completely in effect until 2006). So it's hardly a founding principle that can't be relatively easily changed or removed.

You won't admit that it is an additional benefit, so I don't know what else to say to you.

I've read your post, I posted links where you asked for citations so I don't know how you can say I'm not reading your posts. And you haven't refuted anything I've posted or linked to, so I have to assume you don't have any kind of refutation to it.

You don't like the fact that having multiple spouses is a legal benefit over having a single spouse, and so it is a special privilege.

You want to paint me with the anti-same sex brush, but same sex couples aren't asking for anything special in the way polygamous couples are.

@deadmanwalking - Not granting special privilege is not the same as discrimination.

If there were no advantages, I would agree with you. But there are a ton of advantages as I've pointed out, not to mention it would require a more or less complete re-write of the family law system.

Not having to select a single spouse is in and of itself a huge advantage.

And for what reason would we grant additional advantages to those who wish to practice polygamy? Based on what has been posted so far, it is something that seems to have been historically a net negative in every society in which it has existed?

Feel free to post counter examples, I so far have not found any legitimate ones based on science and research that said anything other than it is a net negative for society as a whole in the places where it is practiced.

So...we shouldn't have tried a non-monarchal form of government, given how badly those had gone in the past, then?

I'm going to challenge this response. There was this thing called the Iroquios Confederacy that had managed to survive for hundreds of years in North America before the colonists tried something similar. Non-monarchal government has managed to exist in the past for long periods of time and has done quite well.

So...we shouldn't have tried a non-monarchal form of government, given how badly those had gone in the past, then?

I'm going to challenge this response. There was this thing called the Iroquios Confederacy that had managed to survive for hundreds of years in North America before the colonists tried something similar. Non-monarchal government has managed to exist in the past for long periods of time and has done quite well.

I'm going to challenge this response. There was this thing called the Iroquios Confederacy that had managed to survive for hundreds of years in North America before the colonists tried something similar. Non-monarchal government has managed to exist in the past for long periods of time and has done quite well.

The Iroquois Confederacy was somewhat more decentralized, historical details are still shaky on it as a political (as opposed to ceremonial) entity (and were likely even more distorted by propaganda at the time), and it's success is somewhat dubious since it got rather eradicated. Indeed, the nascent U.S. was the one to do so. Having just witnessed the thorough defeat of such a nation isn't a ringing endorsement for the governmental form, as a rule.

ciretose wrote:

Not to mention Greece, Rome, etc...this isn't even a good strawman.

Rome is an excellent example of how a republic falls, and the feuding Greek city-states (who did things tlike execute generals for not beating impossible odds) are not a particularly inspiring example of democracy either, looked at logically.

The ideal is, of course, compelling, but there was little evidence it would succeed in practice at the time.

And the burden isn't on me, you are the one asking for special privilege. The government functionally gives each person a voucher that they can use to designated one person to be their spouse.

Next you can claim that aerobic exercise is a special privilege, because the right to breathe public air does not implicitly involve extra use from panting. Of course, this comment is coming from a guy who believes that everything not expressly forbidden by the constitution is a specific right automatically granted to U.S. citizens, so take it with a grain of salt.

@deadmanwalking - Not granting special privilege is not the same as discrimination.

So...gays not being able to marry isn't discrimination? Or any other similar group?

I mean, marriage itself (as you define it) is a special privelege, so logically...

Or is it only not discrimination if it's a group chosen, instead of being born into? And if so, what about the anti-religious examples I've brought up?

ciretose wrote:

If there were no advantages, I would agree with you. But there are a ton of advantages as I've pointed out, not to mention it would require a more or less complete re-write of the family law system.

Not having to select a single spouse is in and of itself a huge advantage.

Multiple spouses are only a legal advantage if they don't come into conflict, when they do they are a legal disadvantage as the whole thing gets messy and unpleasant. This happens semi-regularly.

I think the two balance out fairly well, really.

ciretose wrote:

And for what reason would we grant additional advantages to those who wish to practice polygamy? Based on what has been posted so far, it is something that seems to have been historically a net negative in every society in which it has existed?

Once again, polygyny being allowed (and enforced) is not the same thing as all polygamy of all sorts being allowed and in all likelihood does not result in the same consequences, therefore your examples are basically irrelevant.

ciretose wrote:

Feel free to post counter examples, I so far have not found any legitimate ones based on science and research that said anything other than it is a net negative for society as a whole in the places where it is practiced.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but:

We have no data on polygamy of all sorts being legal.

Zero, zip, zilch, nada. We have data on what happens when polygamy is applied unfairly and the results are universally worse than monogamy...but that's not an equivalent situation at all, so it's well-nigh meaningless for purposes of this discussion. So no, I have no data, because the basic concept I'm advocating has never been attempted, legally speaking. Nothing remotely like it has, so both you and I are lacking historical data on the phenomenon, and must rely on other things.

ciretose wrote:

So why would I grant additional benefits, not equal benefits?

You are aware of the irony of this statrement being made by a supporter of gay marriage, yes?

And for what reason would we grant additional advantages to those who wish to practice polygamy? Based on what has been posted so far, it is something that seems to have been historically a net negative in every society in which it has existed?

Once again, polygyny being allowed (and enforced) is not the same thing as all polygamy of all sorts being allowed and in all likelihood does not result in the same consequences, therefore your examples are basically irrelevant.

ciretose wrote:

Feel free to post counter examples, I so far have not found any legitimate ones based on science and research that said anything other than it is a net negative for society as a whole in the places where it is practiced.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but:

We have no data on polygamy of all sorts being legal.

Zero, zip, zilch, nada. We have data on what happens when polygamy is applied unfairly and the results are universally worse than...

Furthermore, we have no data on what happens when polygamy is legal in a society that enforces equal rites for women. I suspect polygamy would remain rarer in a modern society where anyone involved in the marriage could refuse to add additional partners than it was in traditional polygynous cultures.

Nor is polygamy a likely cause for the lack of equal rites for women, since historically even monogamous societies did not treat women equally until very recently.